the simple fact is that faith in eternal justice and a benevolent creator demands pacifism and unconditional love towards all beings. Muhammad spent 10 years fighting in war. therefore, its impossible that he was a prophet. period. end of story.

none of that bullshit referring to literature is needed.

Logical fallacy.

No True ScotsmanThis fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, "Well, then, he's no true Scotsman." In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian's definition of the word, "Scotsman.

This is like giving you a check for a 100 billion dollars and about 10 seconds before you cash it I cancel the check, that would not result in a happy camper here.

Agreed with you here, but would that unhappycamperness continue for 2500 years and to such an extent that it would cause a major religion to be fabricated? I find that doubtful. And again, even pointing out a motive (regardless of how weak it is, in my opinion its weak, in yours its not) is not enough. It would be like saying "We know Y murdered her husband X because she was upset that he cheated on her." That would not hold up in court without much stronger evidence.

the point of what year it was does not hold water. one guy is using the christian calender, B.C. and A.D. the other group don't use the same calender. because they don't believe in christ, duh.

to all of you who want the simple version here it is; A guy wanted to have kids but his wife couldn't have kids. So the guy fucked the maid who gave him a son. back then the 1st born son inherits everything. BUT then the guys wife does get prego. oops, so the guy leaves everything to his 2nd son which pisses off his 1st son and now we have terrorist. ta-daaaa!

the point of what year it was does not hold water. one guy is using the christian calender, B.C. and A.D. the other group don't use the same calender. because they don't believe in christ, duh.

to all of you who want the simple version here it is; A guy wanted to have kids but his wife couldn't have kids. So the guy fucked the maid who gave him a son. back then the 1st born son inherits everything. BUT then the guys wife does get prego. oops, so the guy leaves everything to his 2nd son which pisses off his 1st son and now we have terrorist. ta-daaaa!

Actually he's not even saying "now we have a terrorist," he's saying after thousands of years including tens of generations after the fact the anger still existed in ancestors such that it's conclusive they would create a false religion out of spite.....exactly why I said it's a weak illogical argument.

Agreed with you here, but would that unhappycamperness continue for 2500 years and to such an extent that it would cause a major religion to be fabricated? I find that doubtful. And again, even pointing out a motive (regardless of how weak it is, in my opinion its weak, in yours its not) is not enough. It would be like saying "We know Y murdered her husband X because she was upset that he cheated on her." That would not hold up in court without much stronger evidence.

I lmao on that word bro .... unhappycamperness

Continuing this resentment for 2500 years is nothing bro. Do you not know that David the Jewish boy killed Goliath the Palestinian over 3000 years ago. lol The Palestinian and the Jews are still killing each other every day.

OK then your knowledge of history is completely non existent then. As a historian that I am I know and every historian on the planet would agree we would be back in the stone age if the spiritual leaders of humanity did not think killing was necessary. There where so many Pagan tribes and nations in the history of man kind that would go from village to village and exterminate everything in their path. Woman and children would be stomped on like insects. Such tribes as The Canaanites, Amorites, the Edomites, the Heathens, the Barbarians and the Saxsons just to name a few or maybe someone like you has never heard of Attila the Hun.

How about tribes that would sacrifice children in a painful manner like boiling them alive. There are still tribes that practice human sacrifice. In fact there is a group of tribe in the Amazon that bury children alive only for the fact that they are having nightmare and they believe them to have demons inside them.

So your retarded advise is to have a God that loves us to never instruct or to order or to allow men to stop these people, well well my uneducated friend this would mean we would still be in horse and buggy and there would only be a few races on the planet, everyone would be wiped out.

Your dumb thinking is the result of living in an era where the days of conquest are over but in reality every era before us fought hard to merely survive a brutal and savage world, Wake up.

blah blah blah

the idea that god needs you to fight his battles is blasphemous.

the only person god needs you to worry about is yourself.

life on earth is not about fighting evil in others, its about fighting evil in yourself.

your journey towards gods enlightened spirit is never ending and it will never involve violence towards others.

No True ScotsmanThis fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, "Well, then, he's no true Scotsman." In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian's definition of the word, "Scotsman.

you obviously have no idea what i was talking about. please, tell me what you think i was saying and let me correct your misinterpretation.

The premise of your argument is ridiculous. On the one hand you are quoting a bible verse that says that his descendants will be blessed and that God sent an angel, protected them, promised them success, etc...

On the other hand you have a narration stating they are wild asses. Sounds like the wonderful handy work of hateful Jews more so than God.

Funny that, you think the idea that Jews are God's chosen people is a must. They were chosen as per our own beliefs in Islam because they believed in God. Not based on race.

The idea here that's being defended and that our resident zionist jew (who hates blacks, arabs, muslims and christians) said oh yeee us heebs owning. Is just demonstrating that this is a racist religion or at least it turned into one.

What we believe in Islam is the same for Abraham as a messenger of God. In the qur'an Abraham prays for all his descendants to be believers and God answers him no, because everyone is free and there is no gaurantee how anyone turns out.

What the Jews ignore is the history of the Arabs and what Abraham did. What Abraham did with Ishmael and with Isaac teaching them about God. In Islam we believe Abraham visited Ishmael and that the kabaa was built by them both.

Before Islam the Arabs were following a few diffferent religions. Some were pagans, some were following Abraham's religion and they called towards one God and some were Christians. Amongst them lived Jews as well.

One of the prophecies of the old testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) is that he would be a prophet like unto moses, who will speak what God commands him to speak. Muhammad (pbuh) is far closer to this than Jesus (pbuh). Jesus did not bring new laws, he came to fulfill and obey them. Jesus did not have an army like Moses. Jesus did not have vast followers like Moses, Muhammad did. Etc...

If anything it is the Jews who have a problem. In fact one of the reasons that many Jews rejected accepting Islam and Muhammda (pbuh) was out of pride and arrogance. They recognized him as a prophet in the arab peninsula, but, they rejected him on the basis that he was not a Jew. This is fact, although many rabbis did become Muslim many did not out of racial pride.

Lastly, if anyone is to talk about terrorists. Samson was the original terrorist who suicided himself. Oh yes, I know the story. How he held the pillars and killed thousands and how his hair gave him strength, etc... etc...

^^^ according to the bible Jesus did change the law. when people talk about the fulfillment of the law they are talking about the fulfillment of god's true law, as opposed to the existing laws when jesus came to earth. the laws of judaism and juda before jesus had a lot to do with arbitrary guidelines like wash your hands before eating, dont work on sundays, dont eat a food unless its prepared a certain way, etc. jesus came with the message that all of those laws were rubbish and that god's will was simply to love all beings unconditionally and completely. when muhammad came, his message was that the teachings of jesus, that all that mattered was love, was far too weak and easy and that people had to abide by certain strict guidelines about how to live their life and that simply loving everyone unconditionally was not enough. muhammad was an extremely misguided and violent soul who should not be worshipped but pitied.

Jesus did not change the law. Paul did and the Romans abolished it. Yes the very enemies of Jesus and the Jews, the then believing nation of the world.

Quote

like wash your hands before eating

Seriously?... man...

According to Islam, we continue off where Jesus left off. Paul is ignored as he is a fraud who perverted Jesus' message.

The law is changed but retained. Yes we wash our hands before eating... Amongst many other things...

Jesus message was of mercy, as Jews were devoid of faith. They had the law of God, yet they did not have faith. So Jesus emphasized more so on the heart and faith.

Jesus did not intend for Paul to start preaching do away with the law its all love love love, delusional emotional rhetoric....

So you are saying if the Palestinians Christian and Muslim are being slaughtered by Jews, they should just show 'love' when they are being killed. Do you realize how foolish that sounds?

The qur'an opens with surah al-fatiha... and in the last few verses we say, God guide us to the straight path. Not of those that have earned your anger (jews) or of those that have been misguided (Christians).

This we recite every prayer. Why? Jews had everything given to them, many prophets from them, yet they lost faith and were always haughty. Never truly obedient in their heart to God. Christians have faith, yet they have no knowledge, so every each christian follows whatever their desires and emotions tell them. No christian has the same knowledge of God. The law is lost. Hence... today... Christians have no problem with fornication, homosexuals being married and amongst many other things. Everything is based on man's law.. and the only 'faith' you have is "Jesus saved us" and a rhetorical "Jesus loves us all".

God loves the believers, God is merciful to all if they seek his mercy. God is known as al-wadud the loving in the qur'an. However God is also the most just and instructs us to believe and enforce justice. Otherwise the weak will suffer and tyrants will rule.

Today the elite are filthy rich and the poor helpless. Just one example. This is the injustice where God is left out of peole's lives and everyone just has rhetorical faith.

Islam is a complete way of life, starting with ourselves as individuals, those closest to us and then communities, socieites, nations ultimately to build one nation under God. One ummah.

you obviously have no idea what i was talking about. please, tell me what you think i was saying and let me correct your misinterpretation.

It's perfectly clear what you said and it was terrible Logic. You commited a logical fallacy called, no true scotsman? I provide the definition of this fallacy for you. Your argument is also wrong simply based on scripture alone. God and his followers, of multiple faiths, indiscriminately murder anyone or group who opposes it/them.

It's perfectly clear what you said and it was terrible Logic. You commited a logical fallacy called, no true scotsman? I provide the definition of this fallacy for you. Your argument is also wrong simply based on scripture alone. God and his followers, of multiple faiths, indiscriminately murder anyone or group who opposes it/them.

i read your fallacy and i dont see how it relates to what i said at all. also, i didnt say that scripture advocates pacifism. if there is any argument worth anything in any scripture that contradicts the idea that god's true will is only pacifism.. then you can bring forth those arguments and i will address them. simply saying "your wrong because scripture says so" isnt an argument at all. who gives a fuck what the scripture says. bring to me the argument you think justifies your belief and we can talk about that. dont just simply say "because scripture told me so".

i read your fallacy and i dont see how it relates to what i said at all. also, i didnt say that scripture advocates pacifism. if there is any argument worth anything in any scripture that contradicts the idea that god's true will is only pacifism.. then you can bring forth those arguments and i will address them. simply saying "your wrong because scripture says so" isnt an argument at all. who gives a fuck what the scripture says. bring to me the argument you think justifies your belief and we can talk about that. dont just simply say "because scripture told me so".

I suggest you reread the definition of the no true scots men fallacy I provided and then reread the post you made that I initially responded to.

You assert as absolute truth that belief in a benevolent god leads to pacificism and love for all. How do you know this? Can you prove it? The answer is, you don't know and you can't prove it, but you feel comfortable defining it. I could define it differently just as easily and be just as wrong.

That is how you committ the no scots men fallacy. You defined a benevolent god and then use your own definition to argue why Mohammed isn't a believer in a benevolent god. It's circular logic.

i didnt say that muhammad was not a believer. i think its rather obvious that he was. what i said is that he was no prophet. and what i mean by prophet is a person who acts god-like in every way and never strays from that divine nature. muhammad fought in wars, violence is not divine, and therefore he is not a prophet.

i didnt say that muhammad was not a believer. i think its rather obvious that he was. what i said is that he was no prophet. and what i mean by prophet is a person who acts god-like in every way and never strays from that divine nature. muhammad fought in wars, violence is not divine, and therefore he is not a prophet.

How do you know what it is to be god-like or what a divine nature is? Again, you don't nor do you even know if such things exist. You keep defining these concepts and judging other based on your own definition. This is the essence of the no Scotsmen fallacy.

What you must realize is your definition is not an objective truth, it's subjective-maybe even meaningless if these concepts don't exist therefore your conclusions are fallacious.

obviously i am speaking hypothetically when i talk about god's will. in order to think about what might be god's will first you need to take for granted that he exists. secondly, i think, you need to assume that god is benevolent and has set up existence in the best possible manner.

after you take those two premises as true then you can begin to make assumptions on fairly strong grounds about what god's will might be.

what do i know about god, if god does exist? well.. god , it seems, is "hands off" and allows humans to be evil if they so wish. thus, i can assume that if i also wish to be like god that i will also have to allow people to be evil. and violence as a means of stopping evil behavior would be logically inconsistent with such an assumption. also, i can assume that god, since he would have the power to create, would also have the power to kill all evil people the second they became evil and thus protect all good people from evil people. but since god does not do so, then i must resist the urge to do so as well.

obviously i am speaking hypothetically when i talk about god's will. in order to think about what might be god's will first you need to take for granted that he exists. secondly, i think, you need to assume that god is benevolent and has set up existence in the best possible manner.

after you take those two premises as true then you can begin to make assumptions on fairly strong grounds about what god's will might be.

what do i know about god, if god does exist? well.. god , it seems, is "hands off" and allows humans to be evil if they so wish. thus, i can assume that if i also wish to be like god that i will also have to allow people to be evil. and violence as a means of stopping evil behavior would be logically inconsistent with such an assumption. also, i can assume that god, since he would have the power to create, would also have the power to kill all evil people the second they became evil and thus protect all good people from evil people. but since god does not do so, then i must resist the urge to do so as well.

do you see how this works? try to think deeply about this

You didn't present your arguments as a hypothetical but as truth. Everything you've said above is nonsense. Even if I were to presuppose for the sake of having an argument that some of it was true, the arguments would still be weak.

Besides, it has nothing to do with the whole argument we have been having about you committing the no Scotsmen fallacy. You seem to be taking this to seriously. You shouldn't. I don't.

the fact you dont take it seriously is evident by your lack of understanding my last argument.

Just to be clear, your argument is as follows... After somehow arriving at an agreed upon outline of God's attributes. One must strive to emulate said attributes to be God like, as being God like is the ultimate purpose of life. Correct?

Agreed with you here, but would that unhappycamperness continue for 2500 years and to such an extent that it would cause a major religion to be fabricated? I find that doubtful. And again, even pointing out a motive (regardless of how weak it is, in my opinion its weak, in yours its not) is not enough. It would be like saying "We know Y murdered her husband X because she was upset that he cheated on her." That would not hold up in court without much stronger evidence.

Your example is a good example and will work against you very soon, here is why; In the court of law a motive and a few key pieces of evidence is enough for a conviction.

Anyone will agree that the most important aspect of a case is to established a motive, in your example you admitted that Y had a motive therefor admitting that Muslim had a motive as well. So we are both in agreement that a motive was there, now let's get started on the key points, the 100's of them BTW ,... shall we?

No True ScotsmanThis fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, "Well, then, he's no true Scotsman." In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian's definition of the word, "Scotsman.

Your post is way more then enough to put this subject to rest. Thank you

the point of what year it was does not hold water. one guy is using the christian calender, B.C. and A.D. the other group don't use the same calender. because they don't believe in christ, duh.

to all of you who want the simple version here it is; A guy wanted to have kids but his wife couldn't have kids. So the guy fucked the maid who gave him a son. back then the 1st born son inherits everything. BUT then the guys wife does get prego. oops, so the guy leaves everything to his 2nd son which pisses off his 1st son and now we have terrorist. ta-daaaa!

Well, kind of but without the terrorist part though cause I don't think the entire religion should be labelled on account of a couple of asshole causing havoc in the name of their religion, also in a much more respectful manner then the way you put it.